Understandably, because it means taking work out of one company and putting it in another, but it is what it is.

I do wish I had an unlimited budget to do everything, but I don't.

Was the second comment connected to outsourcing? Surely in cases of recruitment it costs more to outsource than do in house? Forgive me if I mis-understood you.

No you didn't misunderstand me. It depends on what your budget is. Spending days going through hundreds of cv's is not time well spent and if I don't have the staff to do this for me I'll get a recruiter to do it.

Oh sure twenty seconds is great...I'm sure an agency will look at it in more depth so potentially an agency is more likely to find the best candidate than even an employer! You've kinda sold me on agencies a bit with that comment Jasper .

Oh sure twenty seconds is great...I'm sure an agency will look at it in more depth so potentially an agency is more likely to find the best candidate than even an employer! You've kinda sold me on agencies a bit with that comment Jasper .

No I haven't! Agencies don't "spend more time" looking at CV's "in depth". They use key word scanning of CV's and if you haven't done EXACTLY the SAME job as that advertised in your LAST employment you are screened out, no matter how much experience you have and what you could achieve.

AND............ you only look at Cv's for 20 seconds in the first instance! The pile of maybes then get looked at in more depth. It isnt rocket science!

BUT again let's face it if you can get your company to PAY for an external agency to do part of your job, who wouldnt rather be on here than doing some actual work!